-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dmitri Krioukov Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:46 PM To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; 'brett watson'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: fighting cidr dead ending (was: RE: CIDR Report)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer (E-mail) Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:31 PM To: 'brett watson'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: CIDR Report
Under the current system, what we are forced to do is either obtain a /24 for each location (even when there are <16 hosts there), or
so, basically we have this very common and well understood situation that there are some customers who do not require large blocks but who want to see their small pi blocks advertised and routable more or less everywhere (if those blocks are pa, how many over there are using the second option from rfc2260? if not that many, what's wrong with that?). among these customers, there is some portion, who may be educated that they do not really need what they ask for. the other portion either cannot be educated or does really need that. as for "interim" :) solution, i cannot see much problem (except significant coordination effort) in having (regional) irs allocating blocks, from which longer (than /24) prefixes would be acceptable even by verio. this way, verio would be happy filtering all longer prefixes except from these well-known blocks and the address space wouldn't be wasted on the aforementioned customers.
some tables may be even created matching allowed prefix lengths and the well-known block(s) for them.
it looks like i'm reinventing the classfull routing, though :)
-- dima. -- dima.